New Mars Forums

This is not true, and I would be glad to correct your misbelief. In fact, the family of nations (and family of languages) which are called "Slavs", got their self-name "Slavs" (or, more correctly, "Slovian") out of their own language(s). Not any connotations with "slavery", this is only a coincidence from the very different language.

The word "Slovian" derives from the Slavic word "Slovo", which means "Word". So, the "Slovians" could mean, in Slavic languages, "those who know words", "those who use words", "those who use words properly", etc. That way, if we try to most correctly translate the word "Slovian" into English, we would probably get something like "Wordie".

Our nation, Ukraine, is not "on a fault line" between Poland and Russia. We are independent and rather old nation, the only problem is, we were for a long time in some or another form of union with Russia - to illustrate it, imagine if Scotland declared independence from England. There is no "fault line" between Poland and Russia. Poland, Ukraine and Russia are three different Slovian nations. And by the way, it's possible to find lots of words which sounds nearly similar in Russian and Polish languages, but are quite different (with other root) in Ukrainian language. This is to prove, that Ukrainian language is not "a kind of mixture of Polish and Russian", Ukrainian is quite independent language, much similar rather to Croatian than to Russian or Polish.

It should be mentioned, that Ukraine have had quite enough of weapons, including nukes, when we declared Independence, dissoluting USSR. Those weapons would be quite enough to prevent the current war, and hundreds of thousands of lives would be saved. But, after the declaration of Independence, Ukraine had been put under constant pressure from Russia and the U.S., to give up all nukes, and after that, to give up lots of conventional weapons. In return, we Ukrainians heard lots of safety assurances. "You are safe, no need to worry, why you want to stay so armed, are you going to begin some war?" We tried to explain, that Russia could want to invade and conquer Ukraine, we would be in danger without weapons. But we heard, "don't be paranoidal, no problem , Russia is under control, everything is under control, you are safe - and so, why you don't want to disarm, Ukraine, are you going to begin some war?" And we tried to be good, we didn't want to begin any war, and so, we Ukrainians signed Budapest Memorandum in order to have a written assurances in our safety.

And now, we all see the price of all those words and assurances. Ruled by evil KGB regime, Russia started full scale invasion, in order to conquer Ukraine - precisely, as it was predicted. Probably it's not needed to remind, what atrocities they do with our people on occupied territories. So, where are our weapon? And where are our assurances of safety?

I, personally, do not need to see those Russian tanks near to my house. I even do not need to see those Russian missiles flying over my house, they provide much more merciful death as compared by tanks, but even missiles are quite not welcome here. I would like to see my beloved Ukraine to be nuclear state, and than the war would not even started. But, even on the current state of things: the sides who signed the Budapest Memorandum (i.e. the U.S. and Britain, and their allies) should do all what they could do, to recover this mistake, this crime, this catastrophe - of this disarmament of Ukraine. This means, they should give all needed weapons to Ukraine.

Ukraine needs weapon, weapon, weapon - and all other stuff that is needed in time of war. And all this should be provided in order to comply the assurances of the Budapest Memorandum. PACTA SUNT SERVANDA.

The mentioned single-staged Rockwell's Star Raker is not able to reach orbit, at least when using the existing, or even realistically imagined on the level of our Earth science, constructive materials. It is rather a long discussion to explain, why single-staged vehicles were not able to reach orbit all the time of space era. I could explain it, but it is understandable that the explanation is not even needed. I know, and you know, that the old Star Raker project, from 1979, is not going to be implemented, that it would be not able to reach orbit if implemented, that there are much better new projects. It is understood, the only thing you are interested by saying these words, is making a false impression that your mafia managed to find some hidden method to force me to confess something quite contrary to my beliefs. Your phrase could be understood as a metaphorical proposal, that I'll get something much better, maybe lots of money, if I'll agree that the stupid Star Raker is better than my project. This methaphorical method of communication is used in business and politics in order to say something in quite understandable, but deniable manner. Of course, I know these methods very well: everyone who dare to confront against Moscow KGB knows these doublespeak methods, they often speak to you in this manner, there is nothing new in this.

Surely, you would deny this methaphoric interpretation of your words; this method of speaking is designed to be quite deniable. And sometimes, especially if some powerful hidden forces are interested, the one who write such words with second meaning, could even not see or understand this second meaning, for example being programmed by psychotronics or other mind control method (and this creates misunderstandings, leading to long-time enmities and bloodshed). In order to avoid these misunderstandings, I would say, in this discussion I deny every possible interpretation, except the straight understanding. No metaphors, no hinting, no second meaning, etc. It shold be taken into account, that Ukraine is waging war against Moscow KGB regime, and we are tired to see lots of such invectives from Moscow internet trolls; for example, some of your other words could be methaphorically interpreted in a manner that I'm afraid of Vladimir Putin. That is false, he is only despiceful KGB puppet, we call him "Khuylo" (rather a strong invective, but this KGB scoundrel deserves it). You could read my twitter,

http://twitter.com/Lychakivsky

in order to get to know about my political actions.

If someone would say to me something in private, say it in straight words, you could always send me a SMS, on my GSM phone number +380672655277.

If you thoroughly read my previous post, about the separator thing betweeen the second and the third stage, you could find the general solution, making all the problems with shock waves solved. The separator thing, fixed on the top of the second stage, could be implemented in a manner that the third stage is "sunk" into special "nest", or "pit", made to fit its outlines and hidding it's nose and leading edges from the airflow; in that way, all construction of the second and the third stages become one streamlined aerodynamical shape, without forming something like "nacelle" from the third stage. I have thought about the problem of separation of these two stages in hypersonic flight, having invented a few methods, but after thorough thinking of all the process of climbing on the orbit, this is all even not needed: the separation of the second and the third stages could be done on the height about 100 km, out of atmosphere, where the second and third stages are flown after ramjets weaken and rocket engine of the third stage is ignited, burning rocket fuel from the second stage, which is used like a big flat fuel tank. There is nothing difficult to separate the second and the third stages when they fly out of atmosphere.

Of course, I can not search all the possible prior art documents, especially taking into account that some of them could be secret; and, taking into account possible military use of the invention, forgeries are not excluded. I can say for sure, I have not seen other spaceship project with that method of multiple and multistaged refuelings, before Elon Musk disclosed his Martian project; it was disclosed some time after my Martian project, and I'm interested, if they re-invented this method or had "borrowed" it from me.

-------

And one more important thing. About a year ago, on that forum, after I described the project to win the war against KGB, by implementing my spaceplane, which could effectively broke the moral of evil Moscow regime (they couldn't stand if Ukrainians overcome them in space), we obtained a lot of important information. First of all, when reading this forum, we saw a clear message from Russian satanic cabal, most likely giving to someone a hint to fear. It was a picture of a woman, depicted in satanic entourage and dressed in clearly satanic style, and a few unlinked words in Russian language, not understandable for everyone but probably with some hints for someone. It was not linked to discussions on the forum, appeared on some random topic, and was quickly cleared by moderators. It could be understood, it was a reaction by satanic KGB cabal, ruling in Moscow, on these my texts about my three-staged spaceplane and Martian project. The satanic KGB cabal, ruling in Russian Federation, was furious, and took measures in order to prevent that my Ukrainian project wouldn't win over them.

It seems, these threats and attemps to block my project, had disclosed hidden ties of Moscow satanic KGB cabal to satanic societies in USA, so-called Illuminati. It is nearly clear, that in order to destroy Ukraine, these KGB people, often - successors of NKVD GULAG executioners, are trying to operate by hands of USA, making secret antiukrainian conspiracies with the satanic Illuminati cabal, which became hidden ruling mafia in USA in result of 9/11. This knowledge could be important for those who stand against these enemies of God.

These links between Moscow satanic KGB and satanic Illuminati are very natural, because they share the same beliefs. They hate democracy, they deny free will, they base their power on mind control practices and terror. Interestingly, in metaphor of Star Wars, they like to describe themselves as a "Dark Side", with all that bla-bla-bla about Darth Vader, centralised empires, destroying free will of common people, etc.

These beliefs of Dark Side could not win in Ukraine. All our history, Ukraine was insurgent nation, and never - imperialistic nation. And that rise of Dark Force after 9/11 in USA, explains lots of mysteries of Ukrainian politics; when satanic Moscow and satanic Illuminati destroyed Ukraine by covert operations; when stupid Poland, afflated by imperialistic dreams, rise a demand of "deheroization" of Ukrainian Insurgent Army; when international Jewry, oftenly linked to Moscow KGB, constantly try to intercept control over our state, killing Ukrainian patriots and doing business on blood, in favor of Moscow. The problem, since failure of Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2005, was that the Dark Side (secret satanic societies) became the global ruling mafia, in result of 9/11.

The problem for USA is, if you decide to transform into Evil Empire, there are other nations in the world that would appear to be much better for that role. To become Evil Empire, for USA, means lost independence and became degraded cryptocolony of some other nation, maybe Israel, or extraterrestrial beings, of Lucifer itself. It would be good, if some people in USA obtained that knowledge, and organize some resistance. In modern USA, it's not easy, we know that.

We are on the Light Side, and my ability to type this message is an evidence, that we are still operating and have some achievements. Слава Україні.

Of course, I know about refueling of orbital space station by cargo spaceship, it was known even in Soviet Union. But the invention I am talking about is something very different. It is a kind of space refueling, when we refuel not a space station, but a space carrier; it means, refueling is done in the same fuel tanks of orbital stage of space carrier, which were used when the orbital stage of the carrier accomplished it's final ascent to Earth orbit. And the refueling is done by the other orbital stage of space carrier, transferring the small rest of fuel/oxidizer, kept in its fuel tanks after final ascent to orbit, into fuel tanks of the said first orbital stage. After a few, presumably 10 - 15 such refuelings, we could end up with orbital stage of space carrier, completely refueled on orbit, and ready to fly further, carrying payload, or fuel for next stage of such multiple and multistaged refuelings.

Particularly, in case of completely reusable spaceships, it means that we could launch one spaceship on low Earth orbit, and constantly fly some another spaceship between Earth and this first spaceship, one time after another, every time transferring a small rest of fuel/oxidizer, staying in tanks of the another tanker spaceship after climbing to orbit, and addind this small amount of fuel/oxidizer into fuel tanks of the first spaceship - presumably, until fuel tanks of the first spaceship would become completely full. For completely reusable spaceships, this method of refueling is especially useful, because their fuel tanks, provided for final ascent to orbit, are sufficiently large, and no non-reusable parts, like external fuel tank, are needed for every flight; and therefore, characteristic velocity of completely refueled spaceship on orbit is sufficiently high, and cost of one refueling flight to orbit is very low.

Of course, for such a refuelings, it is needed to use non-cryogenic fuel/oxidizer, which would not evaporate during all the process of these multiple refuelings, which could take quite a lot of time. Also, every time we got a completely refueled spaceship on some orbit, we could use it as a tanker to transfer a rest of fuel even further, for some spaceship waiting on higher orbit, and so on. That way, constantly transferring fuel by these multiple and multistaged refuelings, we could fly our spaceships higher and higher, on next and next stages, on Moon, Mars, asteroids, an so on.

This new method of multiple and multistaged refueling was invented by me sometime near 1999, after I invented the first version of the said three-staged spaceplane. It was clear that such a system of multiple and multistaged refuelings demands to select some standard fuel/oxidizer, used for all operations in space (and preferably a standard docking device for refueling). First version was to use standard non-cryogenic fuel, UDMH/DNTO, but it was clear that some other variant could appear to be better after a thorough research. At the moment, it seems the best fuel would be some kind of "enchanced artificial kerosene" (syntin), and the best standard oxidizer would be concentrated hydrogen peroxide. It is also understood, that possibility to synthesize those standard components on Moon, Mars, asteroids, using local hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, and electric energy from photovoltaic arrays or nuclear reactor, would be also very important. This could create the whole interplanetary infrastructure, when different spaceships travel freely in space, refuel on some base points, or transfer fuel in their tanks for other spaceships.

That way, this particular variant of space refueling is very important, especially for the era of completely reusable spaceships. One could argue that similar space refueling was previously invented a long time ago, by Konstantin Tsiolkovsky. But, as far as I know, there were significant differences. First, as far as I know, Tsiolkovsky didn't mention the need of non-cryogenic fuel, recommending cryogenic hydrogen/oxygen fuel, which is most efficient but very inconvenient due to evaporation under sunlight. Second, Tsiolkovsky mentioned the straight-line space flight, when lots of spaceship (say, 1024) run in one parallel direction, burning half of their fuel, then one half of them transfer rest of fuel to other half, which continue running in this direction, again burning half of their fuel, again one half of spaceships refuel the other half, and so on, until we end up with only one spaceship, obtaining in that manner a very high velocity. On the difference, this my method of multiple and multistaged refueling took into account that we could fly not only in free space, but in our real Solar System, with all planets and moons on their orbits. That way, we could select some base orbit, for the first stage - low Earth orbit, where the first spaceship is waiting while the other one constantly fly between Earth and base orbit, accomplishing multiple refuelings of the first spaceship. After refueling is complete, the first spaceship could move to higher base orbit, and again wait until a few (presumably two) other tanker ships collect fuel on low base orbit ant then move it to the next, higher base orbit, further refuelling the first spaceship. That way, by completing multiple refueling on base orbits, and climbing on higher and higher base orbits, like on stairs, it is possible to reach Moon, Mars, asteroids, and other planets, usind not so many reusable spaceships. This is the difference in the method, as compared to the one proposed by Tsiolkovsky.

One more important difference of my invention of this variant of space refueling, as compared to Tsiolkovsky's (and maybe someone else), is that I have a realistic project of completely reusable spaceship, enabling the best implementation of this method of refueling. Nearly all of the previous completely reusable spaceships, as far as I know, were designed for using cryogenic fuel, because of its better impulse - but this is a proof, that their inventors never took into account possibility of such a refueling, being quite agree that their reusable spaceships could fly not higher than low Earth orbit. And even these few completely reusable spaceships which used non-cryogenic fuel, which I could find on the Net, were barely able to reach orbit, and there were no slightest mention about possibility of space refuelings, either. Therefore, the whole concept of this possibility, to refuel completely reusable spaceship into the same fuel tanks that were used when climbing into orbit, seemed to be completely unknown to other inventors of spacesheps, at the time when I disclosed this my invention of multiple and multistaged refuelings on the Net, on 12 Apr., 2011.

https://lychakivsky.dreamwidth.org/7865.html
https://lychakivsky.dreamwidth.org/8214.html

It's interesting to mention, knowing of that possibility of multiple space refuelings would be useful even in the era of non-reusable rockets. For example, if Soviet designers, for their Lunar project, used that approach of multiple refuelings by tanker rockets, staying with good-known rocket "Proton" instead of creation of the new giant rocket N-1, they could simply create one two-staged base rocket with Lunar spaceship, with second stage and spaceship reaching low Earth orbit, and 10 simple tanker rockets, for refueling that base rocket 10 times on LEO by rest of fuel/oxidizer staying in their tanks, in the same fuel/oxidizer tanks of the second stage of base rocket. After complete refueling, the second stage of base rocket, with spaceship, would be able to reach the Moon and return to Earth; in that way, Soviet Union could win the Moon race, by much cheaper cost. This is one more proof, that the concept of multiple refuelings of space carrier, made in the same fuel tanks which were used during final ascend to orbit, was not known at that time.

That is the explanation, why I am interested, whether SpaceX re-invented this multiple refuelings, used in their Martian project, by their own, or if they "borrowed" this invention from me. This invention is critical for the whole Martian project of SpaceX, without that they couldn't claim reaching and colonization of Mars. Of course, it is not pleasant to me, when my Martian project, disclosed early, is better, more elegant technically and more universal, and still unknown to most people, while Elon Musk's Martian project is proclaimed out loud for the whole world, as the highest achievement of human race or something like that. That way, I would like to ask, if they use my invention or not, because it seems, at least, unethical. First of all, this is a scientific priority, and if Elon Musk used some of my invention in his project, it should be mentioned in his officially published documents, who is the real author of the inventions - because if not, it seems like a tricky attempt of plagiarization.

And also, let's not forget about military applications of the invention. I have already mentioned my discussion with one Russian enthusiast of their MG-19 nuclear spaceplane project. After getting to know about these multiple and multistage refuelings of completely reusable spaceships, they didn't thought a lot, and simply tried to use this invention in their project, so instead of staying on low Earth orbit MG-19 become able to fly even on Mars. If we don't respect author's right to his invention, this creates possibilities of stealing it for evil regimes, first of all - for Moscow KGB. Say it to Elon Musk, if he "borrowed" the invention from me, it would be better to mention my authorship in his official documents, because if not, this creates a risk that the invention would be used for Russian military space program - the possibility which should be prevented.

Concerning all the needed calculations, I probably won't do them by myself, instead reading the numbers from the old thread on this forum:

http://newmars.com/forums/viewtopic.php?id=7993

The only thing needed to change is, if we try to synthesize not cryogenic, but non-cryogenic fuel from H2O and CO2, this could lead to increasing of energy consumption approximately by one order of magnitude. This follows from the very basic considerations, as for creation of much economical cryogenic fuel, hydrogen/oxygen, we need only to dissolute existing molecules of water into hydrogen and oxygen, while for synthesizing of non-cryogenic fuel/oxidizer we need also to construct new molecules, often - by complicated chemoelectrical process with catalyst. Practically, it is trying to set up on Mars a small synthetic fuel generating facility, something like e-diesel which was adverticed few years ago. This technology is not worked out even here on Earth, let alone the dreams to move it to Mars and synthesize there all the fuel/oxidizer to return to Earth (and let not forget, to synthesize non-cryogenic oxidizer is more difficult than non-cryogenic fuel).

This means, the scheme of Mars trip proposed by Elon Musk, with generation of fuel/oxidizer needed to return to Earth by facility created on Mars surface, is too bulky, demands giant spaceships, and creates too much risk for a crew (what if it turned out to be impossible to synthesize fuel/oxidizer on Mars, let's say because this large fuel synthesizing facility failed in Mars conditions?) 

In my Martian project, those problems are solved in much elegant, efficient and universal way.
https://lychakivsky.dreamwidth.org/13658.html

We only use multiple and multistaged refueling, creating temporary reserves of fuel/oxidizer from refueled tankers, placed on basic orbits (low Earth orbit, medium Earth orbit, high Earth orbit, maybe geostationary orbit - than trip to Mars - high Martian orbit, low Martian orbit - and return back to Earth, in reverse order). Automatic tankers fly between those basic orbits, transferring fuel/oxidizer, and returning to Earth (for decreasing of time and cost, we could use some unreturnable tankers, but it's even possible to get along with all returnable modules). After all needed fuel reserves are situated on proper basic orbits, a cargo ship with crew and a Mars lander module fly by those "stairs", one by another, reaching Martian orbit, than visit Martian surface and return back to Earth; and after that, all tankers from basic orbits are returned to Earth. No facility on Martian surface needed, every module is reusable and could be returned to Earth, although using of unreturnable tankers could made all the expedition much cheaper. At that, all of these space modules are standard and could be than used for other space activity, except only one Martian lander module, which could be also returned to Earth. And all this without engaging of the dangerous nuclear power, everything done by conventional engines.

One could argue, this scheme would need thousands of launches of reusable tankers to low Earth orbit. That's right; but, my three-staged spaceplane is completely reusable thing, it is not rocket but aircraft, and there is nothing wrong with aircraft flying thousands of times, day by day. This creates an universal infrastructure for space transportation, and costs for the whole Martian expedition would be much reasonable.   

That way, you could see, why everyone knows Elon Musk's project, but not much people know about my project, which was disclosed before Elon Musk's one - just because honest comparation of those two projects is too infavorable for Elon Musk and SpaceX

Of course, I had done quite a thorough prior art search; and as far as I am informed at the moment, there are no other non-nuclear completely-reusable horizontal-take-off-and-landing spaceplane project which would be comparable. There are a lot of single- or two-staged designs, that are not able to reach orbit, at least at the present level of technology. Also, I had found two, very different, three-staged designs, which would be, theoretically, able to reach orbit - but they are much worse as compared with my project (having smaller mass-to-orbit payload fraction, smaller cargo-to-orbit weight with possible dimensions/weight of the thing, and greater price of a kilogram on LEO).

First, there are a few similar designs, in which a two-staged rocket system, with both reusable winged rocket stages, is carried and started into space from a heavy turbojet cargo aircraft. The third stage, obviously, should be done with heat protection, and also the second stage need to be somewhat heat proof, probably "hot airframe".

This design(s) need(s) a very big carrier aircraft, for the mass-to-orbit payload fraction is very low, probably 1/1000 or slightly more.

Second, there is an old design, with three reusable winged stages, horizontal take off; it's Lockheed System III (1963).

All the three stages use rocket engines, which is uneconomical (it's better to use air breathing engines on altitudes up to 50 - 60 km); also, the third and the second stages would need heat protection; therefore, the mass-to-orbit payload fraction would be small, much less that 1/100, and price would be high.

That way, I have not seen any prior art which would be similar to my project, or which would be better or even comparable; if you know such a project, please present it here, so we could compare them in discussion.

Also, it should be mentioned, unfortunately I have a reason to expect all kinds of attempts and dirty tricks to steal my intellectual property, from Russian FSB(KGB) or maybe some other hostile parties. Achievements of the USSR in space are a very significant part of national mythology of modern KGB-ruled imperialistic Russia; and so, they looks on every our Ukrainian achievement in space with great envy and jealousity. That way, even a project of my spaceplane - with all those capabilities to reach Moon, Mars, asteroids, and with complete reusability - is not only scientifical achievement, but also it becomes a politics, because Moscow's own projects of spaceplanes are much worse. And there are all reasons to expect their countermeasures, in order to steal or compromise my intellectual property rights on that thing, or to obstruct implementation of the project (which by the way could be implemented on our native Ukrainian facilities: Yuzhmash, Antonov, Motor-Sich). At that, KGB-ruled Moscow has a bad habit to operate under false flag, by someone else's hands, using their paid agents on the very top of Western world, enforcing Western governments to betray Ukrainian interests: by bribing the West with big money, or corrupting the West by their agents, or threatening the West by nuclear weapons, and so on. Moscow KGB, oftenly operating by someone else's hands, tries to exclude the threat of implementation of this project; and, may I say, the threat to Moscow is real.

Even an implementation of the very basic variant of my spaceplane, only reaching low Earth orbit, would became a crushing blow into the Moscow national pride - something alike that USA felt when Sputnik was launched. After success of Apollo project, Moscow is somewhat accustomed to lose to Americans - but if they lose to Ukrainians, it would be ideologically devastating to them. But again, this is only beginning.

What if we Ukrainians were not only the first who launched completely reusable spaceplane, but reached the Moon on it? Asteriods? Martian satellites? Mars? With complete reusability? All this would became crushing blows to Moscow national pride; they would feel themselves as historical loosers, the whole public opinion of Russian Federation would feel catastrophically disappointed, and this could lead to overthrowing of their evil KGB-ruled regime.

Again, this is not all. Commercially, the project would be quite profitable, maintaining thousands of satellites of global Internet, and of other telecommunnication facilities, for example TV transceivers on geostationary orbit. But also, with such a cheap prices of transferring satellites on all Earth orbits, it would became possible to create a global space-based anti-missile defense: something like SDI, but on the new level of technology. And this could disarm Moscow not only ideologically, but also from a military point of view. If it became possible to destroy their ICBMs, SLBMs, and strategic bombers on their flight path, Moscow would lose their final argument of nuclear war (which is used by them oftenly, rather to threat: here in Ukraine we know it very well, especially after summer 2014). And all of this could not only overthrow their KGB-ruled regime, but could also, probably, lead to disintegration of the whole Russian Federation (there are already quite a few national autonomies inside RF, seeking for state independence: Tatarstan, Kalmykia, Chechnya, Tuva, even Yakutia...)

First of all, it would be possible to launch the simple, non-nuclear variant of SDI with many satellites, Brilliant Eyes/Brilliant Pebbles; after that, it might be possible to launch nuclear expendable X-ray lasers, Excalibur; this would probably be enough to made Moscow strategic nuclear forces significantly weaker (the capability of my spaceplane to reach not only low, but also all high orbits, with refuelings, would be the key). And here in Ukraine we also have some more inventions and ideas, concerning space-based anti-missile defense, which I will not disclose at the moment.

This is the explanation, why Moscow is using all their possibilities to block, obstruct, and compromise this my project of spaceplane. They understand the threat, and are trying to annihilate the enemy preventively (and I've even heard, how much money they are trying to pay to Western top officials in order to gang up and block this my project together).

Of course, when inventing the thing, I understood that it would be probably not enough to protect such a project by ordinary commercial patent filing; since inventing in 1999, I just kept it completely secret, not telling about it. In 2005, when I thought a team of patriotic pro-Ukrainian individuals came to power, it seemed the time had come. But unfortunately there was a danger of informational leaks; and my inventions, disclosed for some people, were secured by something like a secret patent filings (not by the ordinary commercial patent filings, but by something giving much stronger protection, something like that is preventing, for example, Russian Federation from replicating a shape of American B-2 Stealth bomber: the whole idea is well-known, but replicating is still prohibited). We knew, since than, that Russian intelligence, and other parties, could be informed about these inventions, and there was a struggle to protect my inventions from plagiarizing. That way, I have some reasons to presume, that Russian special services, or other interested parties, were doing some cunning tricks since 2005, not excluded fabricating forgeries, even by their agents in other countries, in order to steal or compromise my inventions - and, of course, I would like that all proper measures should be taken in order to protect all my intellectual property from plagiarizing, stealing, compromising, using without my permission, and so on.

There would be a big difference between cost efficiency of Shuttle and the one of the completely reusable spaceplane (even if their deliverable payload fraction would be similar, about 1/100); the matter is, Shuttle was not completely reusable, nothing like refuel-and-immediately-launch-it-again thing. Manufacturing of a big expendable external fuel tank was very expensive, and also, SRB's needed a lot of costly maintenance between launches. And if the maintenance was poor, it lead to disaster (as with Challenger), so quality control was needed, making the whole launch cycle even more expensive. On the contrary, the completely reusable spaceplane would need only refueling for a new launch (and maybe some routine technical checks up, like any other ordinary aircraft); this means, the price of one launch (and price of one kilogram on LEO, either) would be a few orders of magnitude lower.

The other reason why Shuttle was not very effective, is that its universal capabilities were used not completely. The main purpose for such a reusable spaceship, with that large cargo bay, would be not to bring objects to orbit, but to land them back to Earth; in order to just bring some satellite to orbit, such a big reusable spaceship was rather an overkill. This was understood by Soviet designers, when they created the system Energiya - Buran: they "moved" the main engines of the second stage from orbiter to external fuel tank, making this external tank a full-featured second rocket stage. That way, the whole philosophy of the system had been changed: there was not a rocketplane with a big external tank and solid rocket boosters, but instead a full-featured, two-staged rocket (Energiya), with a side-mounted payload; one of the variants of which payload could be reusable winged spaceship (Buran). That way, with similar launch weight, maximal cargo weight on LEO was about 100 ton (for a first time, Energiya was launched without Buran, bringing nearly to orbit a 100 ton "model" of military laser space station).

That way, from one point of view, Energiya-Buran was better than Shuttle; we don't need to bring to the orbit the whole spaceship, if only rocket is enough; and it could bring to the orbit a much heavier cargo, about 100 ton; but when we need to complete some special tasks on orbit, or to land some satellite back to Earth, than we could launch the reusable spaceship. But also, and it was understood, the main subject of prestigious competition was reusability itself; and from this point of view, Energiya-Buran had lost, because it was less reusable: even though that four rocket boosters of the first stage were planned be done reusable, the whole second stage was not. That way, Buran lost to Shuttle the main prestigious prize: its second stage engines were not reusable, and they even not were planned to become that.

I remember how it was unpleasantly to me these days in 1989, to understand that my country lost the prize of prestige in this competition; and I was trying to invent, how the rocket like Energiya could be done completely reusable: if this would be done, we would win all the competitions over Shuttle. There is nothing especially difficult to made boosters of the first stage reusable: the only thing that's needed to implement is soft landing. But to save the big central block, it was needed to implement its safe reentry in atmosphere from space velocity. And that's the design invented by me these days:

The main idea is: because the engines are much heavier than empty fuel tanks, the central block should reentry with its engines forth; that way, we need to add some unfolding lattice fins on the upper part of the block, which becomes rear at reentry; and also to place a heat shield under the engines, so they could survive the reentry phase. When climbing into orbit, the heat shield, in form of disk, is docked on the pylon placed on the side of central block, opposite to the payload, forming a kind of streamlined T-shaped stabilizer. After the payload is released in space, the heat shield disk should be re-docked under the block of engines, on the special heat-protected robust skirt, closing the engines from heating on reentry. Of course, the unfolding lattice fins should also be implemented heat-proof; and some heat protection, probably, would also be needed to cover the whole body of the central block, although it should be much more lightweight, because it should protect only from tangential heating stream (and maybe, it would be even possible to do without heat protection, only heat-proof side parts of central rocket block, e.g. made from heat-proof steel); it should be taken into account, that side parts of central block would be slightly shadowed from that heating stream by flanges of the heat shield disk. In order to stabilize the central block and minimize its random tilts during the hot reentry phase, which would lead to touching of its sides by heating stream of air, the central block could be also made rotating about the longitudinal axis (after the hot reentry phase is over, the rotation should be stopped, of course).

In Soviet project of Energiya, four blocks of its first stage should be landed with parachutes on a ground; but, in my imagination, landing of all blocks of the rocket (four side ones and the central block) would be better done on water: for safely landing on the ground, they seems too large. In order to land the fragile rocket block more gently, it would be possible to use gliding parachutes: first, they could bring the landing rocket block exactly in proper place by gliding, so we could land them not only in the sea, but also in lakes and even rivers; and second, the gliding parachute could, just before touching the water, accomplish a maneuver decreasing the vertical velocity to nearly zero. At that, the rocket block should be hanged under the parachute in a proper orientation: nearly horizontally, with engines forth and slightly up (engines are heavier, so by reaction of air, the block would orientate itself "engines forth"). That way, when touching the water with nearly zero vertical velocity and some horizontal velocity, the rocket block firstly would start sliding on water, gently touching it by its part being opposite to engines. Then, as the horizontal velocity decrease, the rocket block would plunge into water more and more, until the whole velocity would be zeroed. That method of landing rocket blocks on water, under the gliding parachutes, seem to be maximally careful, somewhat resembling landing of a hydroplane with a very big wing.

That way, it became possible to implement complete reusability of the whole rocket. If we need only to launch satellites, this reusable rocket could do it by itself, without spaceship, with maximal possible deliverable payload fraction. For operations on orbit, or to bring satellites back to Earth, we could launch reusable spaceship; and the whole system, of rocket and spaceship, became completely reusable, with no expendable parts.

In order to make the landing of fragile rocket blocks even more careful, it also came to my mind that the rocket blocks, when descending under parachutes, could be catched by helicopters, clinging them to a special loop on top of the parachute, by a long rope with some hook on its end (much later after 2005, I had read in the Net that USSR tried such picking up of returned rocket blocks by helicopters for their reusability; but I didn't knew it then). The problem with this idea was, the blocks of Energiya are very heavy (the empty cenral block would weight nearly 100 ton): there are no such cargo helicopters which could carry that load; and creating of special ultraheavy helicopter seemed too expensive, if even possible.

[On a hint from my team: presently, implementing of such a big 100 ton rocket, like Energiya, would be commercially unfeasible; but, this general design of completely reusable two-staged rocket, with side-mounted cargo, optionally carrying a reusable winged spaceship, is easily scalable. The maximal cargo weight for helicopters that we currently operate is about 25 ton.  That way, it seems profitable to implement a completely reusable rocket by that design, with empty weight of central block about 20 - 25 ton; it would end up with its maximal cargo on LEO about 15 - 20 ton. For landing of the returning rocket blocks we could unite the both ideas: when descending under gliding parachute, the rocket block is catched by helicopter, which provides the most careful treatment for reused blocks; but, if helicopter failed to catch some rocket block, then it lands on water, so it would be anyway saved and reused, but maybe with somewhat more maintenance. Also, for that rocket it would be possible to implement a reusable winged spaceship: to maintain satellites in space and bring them back from orbit to Earth, visit space stations, ets. This project seems much better than other existing projects of reusable rockets, because of its mass- and cost efficiency, and much better survivability and reusability of the reused rocket blocks.]

Taking into account, that my internet activity is most probably overheared by hostile parties, interested in plagiarization and stealing of my inventions (probably Russians, which were already caught on attempts of plagiarization of my invntions; but, not excluded, also someone other), I again add this my standard paragraph. My project(s), described in this post (and in the whole thread), are all my intellectual property. All of my intellectual property is prohibited to use without my written permission. In order to prove my authorship and priority on that project(s), as well as on all of my ideas, I would pass a test on a modern variant of lie detector (subliminal questions, answers from the unconscious, but without any possible control or accountability).

It only means, that winged spaceplanes are suitable for air-breathing engines: turbojet for altitudes 0 - 25km; and ramjets for altitudes 25 - 50km, and even higher for some auxiliary additional thrust. That way, we maximally use oxygen from atmosphere. Also, wings are useful, as thrust of air-breathing engines often is less than a mass of the apparatus: in that case, wings permit ascent for a gentle slope, instead of a vertical uplift.

Ok, then let me demonstrate you the said tyranny of the rocket equation.

Let's presume, we have some reusable interplanetary spacecraft with an ordinary (chemical, with burning fuel/oxidizer) rocket engines. What's going on, if we return to Earth from some interplanetary trip? We need to slow down its interplanetary velocity (not less than 11.2 km/sec) in order to transfer to a circular low Earth orbit (about 8 km/sec). That way, if we use engines for this maneuver, we need to (reverse) accelerate our spaceship not less than 3.2 km/sec (and this is only minimal estimate). Let's presume, we use a very good non-cryogenic fuel with I = 3.8 km/sec. What mass of fuel/oxidizer, as compared with the final mass of the spaceship, should be used? 

It's simple.

V = I*ln(M1/M2)  ->  ln(M1/M2) = V/I  ->  M1/M2 = exp(V/I)

That way, M1/M2 = exp(3.2/3.8) = 2.321

This means, in order to slow down our reusable spaceship from interplanetary velocity to orbital (LEO) velocity, we'd need to use a mass of fuel/oxidizer of more than a whole final mass of our spaceship. And we'd need to carry all that fuel, needed to final slow down before transfering to LEO, on all the way of our interplaneary trip (and this is for not such a long interplanetary trip: on the Moon or nearest asteroids; for trip to Mars or more distant asteroids, it's even more).

And so, wouldn't it be better, if instead of using fuel/oxidizer, in order to slow down from interplanetary velocity, we'd use an atmospherical maneuver? These wings and thermal protection, needed for such an atmospherical maneuver, wouldn't weight as much as the fuel/oxidizer, needed for the similar slow down (and even more: they are reusable, while fuel/oxidizer burns out)!

This is a plain demonstration, why wings/thermal protection are useful for interplanetary travel. As far as we use ordinary engines, with their small impulse, using of atmospherical maneuvers when returning to Earth is beneficial, even if we'd count a mass efficiency (not to say, wings/thermal protection are reusable, while fuel should be carried to orbit again and again, which is more expensive).

But even more: these wings/thermal protection could be used also for atmospherical maneuvers on other planets, first of all - Mars. Of course, I don't say we should fly on our spaceship (third stage of my spaceplane) in Martian atmosphere like on an aircraft. I meant, we could use the same atmospherical maneuver in upper layers of Martian atmosphere, in order to slow down our spaceship from interplanetary velocity, and to transfer to low Martian orbit with minimal use of fuel/oxidizer. That way, on interplanetary trip to Mars, wings/thermal protection become even more useful: we use them to slow down twice, when arriving to Mars and when returning to Earth (and this is exactly the method, by which we could refuel spaceships by tankers on Martian orbit: from a very high Earth orbit, we send to Mars a chain of completely refueled tankers, which slow down by Martian atmosphere and then transfer to low Martian orbit, there give a bit of their fuel/oxidizer to a Martian spaceship or Martian landing module, and use the rest of fuel/oxidizer to return to Earth; of course, these tankers should have a very good mass efficiency, to accomplish such a trick).

Also, we could sometimes use atmospherical maneuvers in atmosphere of Venus, slowing down our spaceship on fly-by, if it is needed for some reason.

That way, there are three types of maneuvers we could accomplish:

1. Engine maneuvers
2. Gravitational maneuvers
3. Atmospherical maneuvers

Combining them all, and using the said multiple and multistaged refuelings, we could accomplish rather a complicated interplanetary pilotage.

(After reading all those ideas, probably you'll agree that there is quite a something to claim as intellectual property, in my project.)

Universal cargo spaceship (the first, and probably the most oftenly used variant of the third stage of my spaceplane) only has an empty universal cargo bay. When carrying satellites on LEO, it would contain that cargo; when the spaceship is used for maintaining satellites on orbit, it would contain a small capsule for a crew, and all the instruments needed to maintain satellites (a manipulator arm, a rocket backpack, etc.); when the spaceship is used for interplanetary travel, it would contain a specialized living module with all the needed facilities for a long duration spaceflight; and so on.

Of course, I know about orbital assembly; in fact, one thing that I had invented for my spaceplane, was orbital assembly from blocks delivered to orbit by it, of a big interplanetary spaceship with nuclear reactor and electric engines. As far as I know at the moment, there is nothing especially new in this idea, except the propellant: I invented to use water as a propellant for its electric engines. It seems less effective as compared with using of heavy neutral gases like crypton; but instead, with water as a propellant we could use water ice from asteroids to get new propellent; and also, the water and the oxygen electrolized from it could be consumed by crew.

That way, we would got the really independent spaceship, able to fly here and there across the whole Solar System. And, as soon as we could get such a really independent interplanetary spaceship, I invented a military use of it: this spaceship could be used for a long-range bombardment of Earth (or, very precisely appointed places on Earth) by nuclear (thermonuclear) bombs. The bombs are directed by spaceship to Earth from a very long distance, probably from asteroid belt. After the bomb is guided on its traectory, the spaceship turns aside by its engines, and hide in asteroid belt; that way, the spaceship stays invisible and unreachable from Earth; and the bomb itself could be done stealth, staying invisible all the way to Earth. That way, the only possibility to defend itself from such spaceships would be to create the similar spaceships, hunting for one another in deep space, probably in asteroid belt, or in ring of Saturn, etc.: there is lots of space to hide in the whole Solar System (it's needed to add, this project is also my intellectual property, which I could prove by a modern variant of a lie detector, in a way that I have already mentioned).

That way, you can see, I know even better than script writers: if I would write the script, our Ukrainian spaceships would bombard the frightened Moscow by thermonuclear bombs, safely hiding themselves in asteroid belt or ring of Saturn, and giving no mercy to our enemies

But, in real world, implementing of nuclear reactor in space is costly, and also not safe (what if it fall down to Earth? it'll became dirty nuclear bomb). That way, this is rather not possible for private space company (too much troubles with IAEA, etc.); using of ordinary fuel, and multiple / multistaged refueling, seems cheaper and better, at least for not-so-distant interplanetary travels: to Moon and asteroids, and maybe Mars.

One more idea, on a hint from my team - to try to implement a combined nuclear thermal/electric rocket engine; with the same water for a propellant; using it in the said spaceship (third stage of my spaceplane). Reactor provides heat; we could use the heat to evaporate water (thermal rocket), or to generate electricity and than use electricity in electric rocket engine (accelerating ions of hydrogen and oxygen to very high velocities). This is not easy to implement, but seems still possible, on the present level of technology. That way, with the same source of energy (nuclear reactor) and propellant (water), we could use two different ways of generating thrust: for maneuvers with high acceleration (nuclear thermal rocket), and for long time interplanetary trips (nuclear electric rocket). And also, wings and thermal protection seems very useful: it becomes possible to accomplish maneuvers in atmospheres of many different planets/moons: not only Mars, but probably Titan, and some other. Of course, key possibiliies of multiple and multistaged refuelings of propellant, and obtaining water from ice on asteroids, still are important; but also, using of electric acceleration for long interplanetary trips is much more effective, and also, anyway we need to get electricity from reactor, in order to electrolyze water to obtain oxygen for a crew. This idea could give us, probably, the best universal interplanetary spaceship, being implementable on the present level of technology.

At the moment, I've done some additional search of already known spaceplane designs, which could became a prior art for my project. Still, I hadn't found any prior art that would be killing; although some of other designs, probably, would even reach low Earth orbit, anyway my project is much better, compared to others, if we take into account minimal price per kilogram on LEO, maximal possible cargo weight on LEO, and convenience of use.

Also, taking into account the stratagem by which the Russians were already trying to plagiarize my inventions (they bluntly promised to "find" some very old items, probably from 1950 or so, in secret museums of their design bureau, which would be identical to my inventions - of course, forgeries), I would be very interested whether it would be possible to examine all the other designs, competing with my spacecraft projects, to prove if they are genuine and not forgeries. If I can prove my authorship and priority under a lie detector (as it was declared by me earlier), so whether it would be possible for my competitors to prove their authorship and priority in the same way?

Concerning the claims of my intellectual property - probably, it would be too soon to provide here a complete set of my formal claims, something like my patent filings; it's not excluded that I would do that later, but maybe, I could convince you that I have invented quite new and non - obvious things, if I'd only mentioned, that my design of spaceplane opens the possibility for humans to visit Moon, Mars, asteroids, and return back on Earth, on completely reusable non - nuclear universal spaceships (the same spaceship modules could earn money placing commercial satellites on all Earth orbits, or complete some military missions, or be engaged for trip to Moon, or Mars, or asteroids: additionally, only landing modules for visiting of Moon and Mars are needed); the possibility that I've never seen before in any other projects, and which, therefore, is not only my intellectual property, but also it is my scientific priority.

Theoretical possibility to fly (nearly) to any place, on the same, completely reusable spaceship, is significant, because the working life of the technical device could be made much longer, as the progress of technologies goes (no need to buy a new car for every new trip, and no need to have a different car for a trip to different place). The only thing which is still needed becomes only fuel/oxidizer, but they are cheap. That way, my project is somewhat significant step, I dare say.

The possibility to use the regular (non - nuclear) engines is also very significant, because using of nuclear rocket engine (like NERVA) seems not only very expensive, but also dangerous. Let's remember, Challenger blew up climbing into orbit, Columbia on reentry; if they were nuclear, it would be a major disaster, something a kind of Chernobyl catastrophe. It's not a good feeling, if winged Chernobyl reactor is flying right up over your head. But, it's not excluded they would be still implemented, who knows.

[On a hint from my team: if we're talking about nuclear rockets, like NERVA, it would be interesting to imagine, just for interest, how we could implement this project of three - staged spaceplane with nuclear thermal rocket engine. Let's imagine that the third stage (spaceship) is equipped by such a nuclear rocket engine, everything else is nearly the same, only tanks for rocket fuel/oxidizer from the second and the third stages are changed by tanks for nuclear engine propellant. So, what we could obtain from that? Nothing interesting, if the propellant is hydrogen; but something very attractive, if the propellant is water. Because if the propellant is water, we could use the same multiple and multistaged refuelings, as when we used ordinary fuel/oxidizer; but also, we could use a possibility to obtain water from asteroids, where it is easily accessible in a form of ice (I invented using of water as a propellant for nuclear electric rocket engines, in order to made possible obtaining of the propellant from ice on asteroids, about 1999, that became known to others in 2005; unfortunately it didn't came to my mind to use nuclear thermal rocket engine, like NERVA, for such purpose; nuclear electric rocket engines have much weaker thrust, but much greater impulse, so they seemed to be optimal for long interplanetary trips). That way, by using of water as a propellant, possibly from asteroids, and with all that refuelings, it become possible to conquer the whole Solar System, on a spaceships that are very implementable by the known technologies. Maybe one could ask, what is the use of that three - staged design of my spaceplane, when using nuclear thermal rocket engine? Practically, it would be very beneficial, because all the thing become much more realistic. NERVA has impulse about 800 sec. in vacuum, but much less in atmosphere, and more significantly, using of water instead of hydrogen as a propellant made the impulse still less. Also, if we use nuclear engine, we need to provide a radiation shield for a crew; and maximizing of real (not theoretical) impulse of nuclear thermal rocket engine would greatly affect it's reliability, and we would probably better stay with engine having less impulse (if only it would be enough to reach LEO), but with better reliability (we don't want that nuclear engine to blew up from one small grain of sand in the propellant, so the reliability is very important). That way, engine impulse and mass efficiency would be not enough for SSTO - and for 2STO, either. But if we use my three - staged design, with turbojets on a first stage, and ramjets on a second stage - it seems, we could reach LEO even on the currently implementable nuclear thermal rocket engines for a third stage (spaceship), with water as a propellant; and than, as far as low Earth orbit is reached, we could use multistaged refuelings, than fly higher and higher, than reach asteroids, obtain water from ice for propellant, and travel all over the whole Solar System.]

Well, when we started talking about it, let me describe in details, how my spaceplane is presumed to fly into space.

Take off from a regular runway, on four turbojet engines of the first stage (the two - fuselage tandem airframe, mounted under the big wing of the second stage, which you could see on the drawings). For additional acceleration during takeoff, the rocket engine of the third stage could be also employed, for a short time; but this would burn rocket fuel needed when we'd climb higher, and so I don't like this possibility, this is just to mention.

Four turbojets of the first stage climb the system to altitude about 20 - 25 km, and velocity about М2.3 - М2.5. On this altitude and velocity, ramjets of the second stage are ignited (more precisely, this altitude and velocity is dependent on the characteristics of ramjets: on which minimal velocity and altitude they are able to ignite, provided we're trying to specialize them for maximal velocities and altitudes). During some time, when thrust from ramjets is not very high yet, the system could accelerate with turbojets and ramjets, working simultaneously; moreover, it would be even possible to implement a pass-through for fuel from first stage to the second one, so when ramjets are burning with first stage attached, they are fed by fuel from tanks of the first stage.

Then, it's time to separate the first stage; I know, it could be the problem, but it surely could be solved. For example, if thrust of turbojets of the first stage would be slightly stronger than thrust of ramjets of the second stage, the first stage could move slightly forward (no obstacles there due to geometry); and as wing load per square of the first stage is significantly stronger as compared to wing load per square of the second stage (because wings of the first stage are so small), the first stage would also move slightly down. That way, the stages could safely separate (I know, some problems could also appear due to Bernoulli effect between aerodynamical planes of first and second stages, and supersonic shock waves, etc.; but it all surely can be sorted out, we just need to work upon it, for example trying to work out separation of stages on small flying RC models).

After the first stage is separated, the two rear vertical stabilizers are unnfolded (as shown on the drawings), and the stage fly on it's own small wings to the  runway (still using it's turbojets, or maybe even gliding). Ramjets of the second stage climb the system to altitude about 50 - 60 km, and velocity about M5 - M6. We need to specialize the ramjets to work on maximal altitudes; it's also possible to inject on high altitudes some liguid oxidizer in burning chambers of ramjets (so they would still burn even on very high altitudes - this is not my idea); but nevertheless, on very high altitudes their thrust became weaker. So, on some moment, a rocket engine of the third stage is ignited, fed by fuel and oxidizer from the second stage (the second stage plays a role of external fuel tank). For some time, weaking ramjets are working together with rocket engine. Than, ramjets are shot down, and the system climbs into space on the rocket engine of the third stage, fed by fuel from the second stage (geometrically, we could store a lot of fuel there).

Having burned all the fuel/oxidizer from second stage, the system reach on altitude of about 100 km, or even higher (nearest space, out of atmosphere), with horizontal velocity about 1.5 km/sec. There, the second and the third stages are separated (no atmosphere, no problem with separation). Than, the second stage fly down, glide and land on the runway; when the third stage, full of fuel/oxidizer, obtain with it's rocket engine these additional 6.5 km/sec, reaching low Earth orbit.

It's worth to mention: we really could see the second stage (the big wing) as an external fuel tank. The matter is, it could be done very light (with very good mass efficiency). The mass of ramjets, themselves, could also be low; at the contrary to turbojets, there are nothing to be heavy in ramjets (no compressor, no turbine). The big fat wing of the second stage could be done in a way, that it keeps itself strong just by internal pressure, like inflatable toy (of course, there is some art in making it's internal fuel/oxidizer tanks, so they would keep the aerodynamical form of that big wing just by internal pressure; but that could be done). Also, this (nearly inflatable) wing could have a sharp leading edge attached, and this leading edge could be cooled by flow of fuel/oxidizer, pumped through the internal channels of the edge before using.

Being so light, the second stage needs no heat protection (maybe, it only should be done from heat-proof materials: hot frame), gliding through atmosphere to land on a runway. On the contrary, the third stage (spaceship) would need heat protection; although not so thick as the Shuttle or Buran had, because of much less wing load per square.

It seems to be all; but, as far as we started the techical talks, I'll try to explain my invention of multiple and multistaged refuelings, and all the other things, concerning interplanetary flights on completely reusable spaceships.

And so, the third stage of the spaceplane (spaceship) is flying around the Earth, on LEO, with (nearly) empty fuel tanks. Let's imagine, what if we don't load any cargo to some another similar spaceship, and launch it to orbit, somewhere nearly by the first one? As there is no cargo loaded, it'll arrive with some rest of fuel/oxidizer in its tanks. What if we dock these spaceships together, and transfer this small rest of fuel/oxydizer into tanks of the first one (of course, docking devices should be provided)?

Ok, transferring of fuel/oxidizer is over, spaceships undocked, and the second one is going to land. Let's launch yet another spaceship without cargo, so it transfer the small rest of fuel/oxidizer into tanks of the first spaceship, than undock and land. And so on, and on, and on - let's launch new and new spaceships without cargo one after another (or only one - but launch it many times), so they'll dock to the first spaceship with small rest of fuel/oxidizer, than transfer the fuel/oxidizer into its tanks, than undock and land (for simplification, I'll sometimes say "fuel", meaning "fuel/oxidizer").

It's easy to see, that we could repeat such a procedure, until we end up with fuel/oxidizer tanks of the first spaceship completely full. This is especially convenient exactly with completely reusable spaceplanes: because of their minimal cost per launch. (In fact, all elements of my spaceplane are reusable for hundred and thousand times, nearly like an aircraft; the only exception is the rocket engine of the third stage: it also could be reusable, but it's working lifetime probably would be much smaller, so we'll need to provide a possibility to easily change the worn-out engine by the new one).

And so, after a few (about 10 - 15, depending on mass efficiency) additional refueling launches, we could have the third stage (spaceship) completely refuelled on LEO. It makes possible bringing the cargo on high orbit, or even flying around the Moon. But again, what if our spaceship just moved on high circular orbit, using some fuel? Couldn't we completely refuel it there? Of course yes: we just need to launch one other spaceship, that would accumulate fuel on LEO from arriving spacepllanes, and than brought it to high orbit, using some fuel for that. And so on, and on, and on: in that way, we could fly to every possible highest Earth orbit, including geostationary. And also we could fly to Moon, came up to Moon orbit, and return to LEO.

At that, we see, most of times the spaceships would carry not a payload, but the fuel/oxidizer; and it would be good to implement specialized spaceship (the third stage) to carry only fuel/oxidizer. Of course, the fuel/oxidizer should be carried in the same tanks that are used for feeding engines (no need to divide them); but, because specialized tanker spaceship will return to Earth always empty, and because there should be no cargo bay between fuel and oxidizer tanks, the tanker could be done lighter, with smaller wings and less heat protection; so it would be more mass - effective, as compared with the general cargo (or passenger) spaceship (and this is the very reason, why it's profitable to implement the reusable tanker: in fact, every spaceship could be used as tanker, it's only less mass - effective). 

Also, as we could see, sometimes we'll use some tankers in space without need to return them to Earth: for example, to routinely carry fuel from low orbit to high orbit, an then return to low orbit, to get fuel again. That way, some tankers could be used in space until their rocket engines would wore out. But then, we could implement also unreturnable tankers: without wings and heat protection (which would made them again more mass effective). Those unreturnable tankers could be used to shorten expenses for some operation on orbit.

The docking device for such operations would be better done "universal" and standartized, all the same for all spaceships. Such a docking device could be seen on my drawings: every device have one hollow rod and one funnel (pipelines to fuel/oxydizer tanks should be able to recommutate by valves: so fuel and oxidizer wouldn't be mixed).

Also, it seems profitable to choose the one, standard fuel/oxidizer, that would be used for all possible space operations (this fuel/oxidizer would be also used to climb spaceplane to the orbit, because it is used by rocket engine of the third stage). This fuel/oxidizer should not be cryogenic, because it should not evaporate when spaceship is heated under the sunlight. When I invented this project (it was nearly 1999yr, or maybe 2000), first I thought about standard Soviet non-cryogenic fuel (unsymmetrical dimethylhydrazine + nitrogen tetroxide); but, it was clear even then, this standard fuel pair should be choosen very thorougly, and maybe some other variant appear in future. After that invention became known to others in summer 2005, nearly in winter 2009/2010, I obtained interesting hint from my team: for the standard oxidizer, we could use concentrated hydrogen peroxide. It is good for manned flight, because oxygen, water and energy could be obtained from it (and also, it is a good one-component fuel, e.g. for rocket backpack). Concerning the fuel for this oxidizer, there are a few variants (they were researched by Valentin Glushko): the best seem ordinary kerosene (Imp = 320sec), or pentaborane (Imp=380sec). Kerosene seems somewhat weak, pentaborane much better, but it is very toxic. So it rather depends on how good mass efficiency we could reach: if the Martian flight could be done with kerosene, than ok, but if not - than pentaborane seems to be better choise.

All those standard third stages: cargo, tanker, unreturnable tanker - are good for different operations in space (e.g. they could be used as orbital transfer vehicles for different satellites, provided the satellite has simple docking device, without refueling capability, just one funnel); but for landing on Moon and Mars, special landing modules should be additionally implemented.

The Lunar landing module could be very simple, transported on low Earth orbit in cargo bay, than refueled and transferred (of course, the standard docking device should be provided) to low Moon orbit. After several landing and take offs again on the Moon orbit (every time refueled) it could be abandoned there, or even returned back to Earth. Lunar module itself shouldn't posess a cabin for pilots:  most time, it'll transfer to/from the Moon some cargo, attached right on it's deсk. But if we want to land people on the Moon, a lightweight cabin could be mounted on the deсk, making the lunar module able to carry people.

The Martian landing module is the quite different thing. Mars have some atmosphere, and it's orbital velocity is higher. Therefore, we'll need much more fuel, to land even one man to Mars, and bring him back again to the low Martian orbit. And so, the Martian landing module could be done as a (very specific) third stage of my spaceplane; it takes off and climbs to LEO like the usual third stage; than, after a few refuelings, it is transferred to low Martian orbit, refueled again, and preparing to land on Mars (a man, or a crew of two, would enter into this apparatus from "ordinary" spaceship with living module, by docking on Martian orbit). During landing on Mars, the landing module got slower by reaction of Martian atmosphere (gliding on high velocity), and than lands on it's tail (as it could be seen on drawings). After the crew visited Mars, the module starts again to low Marian orbit (we'll need some thermal protection, and even some thermal shield on the bottom of the apparatus, to protect fuel from boiling during gliding through Mars atmosphere; and the mass efficiency should be really good, to made possible climbing to low Martian orbit again).

Landing on asteriods is an easier thing: the rocket backpack is enough, no other module is needed.

Also, it's worth mentioning, that wings and thermal protection of all those third stages (cargo, passenger, tanker, Mars landing module) could be profitably used for interplanetary trasportation. When the third stage (spaceship) arrives to planet with interplanetary velocity (e.g. backing to Earth from Moon, or arriving to Mars, etc.) it should made the velocity slower, in order to transfer into circular orbit. This could be done by flying through upper layers of the atmosphere of the planet on the high altitide, so the spaceship won't stay sunk in the atmosphere, but should exit from it back to space (with slower velocity). That way, transferring to the high elliptical orbit and passing through upper layers of atmosphere each time when at minimal altitude, spaceship could got much slower and transfer to low circular orbit - which would demand a lot of fuel without such an atmospherical trick.

This project was invented by me during 1997..2000 years; and in summer 2005, it became known to other people. At the moment, it is my intellectual property. Also, in order to prove my authorship and priority, I would pass a modern variant of lie detector (subliminal questions, answers from the unconscious, but without any possible control or accountability).

If under "combined-cycle" you mean something like SABRE engines of Skylon, then it's agreed. These combined devices seems impossible in real world; too much adverticement with no results.

Surely, spaceplanes are not intended to bring lots of tons of cargo on orbit; instead, they could fly to orbit very frequently, with minimal price per kilogram.

But also, you forget my invention of multiple and multistage refueling; this made it possible for reusable spaceplanes to reach Moon, Mars, asteriods, and so on.

To bring a lot of cargo on orbit, surely it's better to use reusable rockets (not as much re-launches as for spaceplanes, but much more cargo per one launch). If someone would be interested, I have a project (it's my intellectual property, either) of such a completely reusable rocket (taking as a prototype rocket Energiya):
http://lychakivsky.dreamwidth.org/7959.html

Let me remember you Ukrainian "Mriya" aircraft. It is not only the most powerful cargo aircraft in the world - it also is intended to be exactly the said turbojet first stage for space launch. Maybe, you heard about MAKS project (small shuttle with external fuel tank) or "Air launch" (two-staged rocket system; as far as I'm informed they even evolutionize it to complete reusability), both intended to start from the top of "Mriya".

In my project, ramjets should start at M2.5 h=25km, and climb upward to M5(6) h=50 km. So they could be specialized for that altitudes and velocities (by "some very specific geometric features", as you have said).

Why? If we take, just for estimate, turbojet engines of Soviet Tu - 144: it's four engines enable take-off weight of more than 200 000 kg (with the aerodynamic characteristics, very similar to my spaceplane); so, if we'd implement my concept of spaceplane with those engines, we would end up with final cargo on LEO estimately 2 000 - 3 000 kg (which is already not bad). And those engines were implemented in 1960s; now, after half a century pass, I think it would be possible to implement more powerful engines, so take-off weight could be nearly 500 000 kg, and final cargo on LEO - estimately 5 000 kg. That would made achiveable all the claimed functionality: including manned trip to Moon, Mars, and asteroids.

This is easy to estimate. On turbojet engines, the Star Raker will reach approximately v=1km/sec, h=30km. All the rest of the speed and altitude needed to climb on the orbit must be reached on a rocket engine, while still carrying heavy take-off chassis, spent turbojet engines, as well as wings and fuel tanks completely covered by heat protection. For conventional (non-nuclear) rocket engines, this is impossible with the mass efficiency provided by modern materials.

Among large flying vehicles - in the 1950s, Soviet big intercontinental cruise missile "Burya" had flown. Please read:
http://www.airbase.ru/sb/russia/lavochkin/la/350/

Supersonic ramjets (1M < v < 6M) are well-calculated scientifically and could be scaled for large aircraft. Primarily, they were not put on large aircraft simply because they can not work on zero velocity, without an accelerating block. But the first stage that I invented, which you see on the drawings, is just such an accelerating block. From the point of view of costs efficiency per one flight, supersonic ramjets are much better than rocket engines, because they have a much larger working life.

It is a big mistake to reduce all the world to commercial efficiency. Both Shuttle and Buran were created more from considerations of national prestige and global military confrontation. Without success of Apollo and Shuttle, the US would stay below the USSR in space race, which would have decisive consequences for the development of the whole global political situation: without these projects, we would live in a completely different world now.

It rather depends on what kind of commercial payload you are counting on. If we are talking about a few launches per year, then maybe SpaceX reusable boosters could be enough.

However, for example, novadays we face the task of creating a global space Internet, based on many thousands of satellites. For this project (which, by the way, is commercially very profitable), reusable rocket boosters have too small working life, they require too expensive maintenance before each launch and they are not completely reusable when flying to high orbits. Such a large number of satellites could be placed on orbits and maintained much cheaply and conveniently by the spaceplane, which would provide a significantly lower price per kilogram on orbit, and could be re-launched much more times, without need in additional pre-launch service (this is exactly a reason why reusable spaceplane is better than reusable rocket booster).

In addition to commercial payload, this spaceplane could also become a key for a wide variety of military applications ("star wars").

Thus, it is profitable to create such a spaceplane, the costs of its creation should be justified: both from a commercial and from a military point of view. And if this spaceplane would be created, it could be used also for prestigious achievements in space explorations. Only a Martian landing module should be added - and the same, commercially profitable spaceplane, could be used to fly to Mars. For flights to the Moon, a lunar landing module is additionally needed; for landing on asteroids - a rocket backpack (and it also could be commercially profitable: e.g. space tourism).